A response to Open Source, Copyright and the Utopian Plagiarism

The task of defining originality in the 21^st century is a difficult one. At this point such a massive volume of already created art is constantly thrust in our faces and unconsciously absorbed through various media outlets all the time. It’s hard to say whether the simple song based on the circle progression I write on a Thursday night is original or a subtle replica of nearly every pop song known to man. I’ve come up with figures of speech that I then heard used independently from a distant friend days later. So who came up with it? Who cares!? Issues of copyright and open sources ideologies are interesting and while I understand and respect the ideals behind both sides I have to say that I further align myself with the new ideology of open source.

Open sources while originally a concept specific to software and program development, is now a social and artistic approach incorporating the idea of public accessibility to code and methodology of a project. It allows for collaboration and collage of work. It is the ultimate karmic hippy ideal. Create something and it has inherent value- unless you are searching for fame and finance take value in the fact that you created something to share with your community and value that your community is creating something for you to build off of and be inspired by.

In the highly technological universe we occupy everyone has the means of production and manipulation of preexisting work. I found Girltalk to be a wonderful example. Yes, he is taking sounds created by preexisting artists but what he does with them creates something so altogether new that while it reflects its component parts it exceeds them becoming something entirely different. Furthermore, this is not the subtle sample of the James Brown horn Michael Franti complained about. An artist can sample the work of another artists and collage it in so subtly with their own work that the ego of the copyright community is damaged. Girltalk uses such blunt clips of other musicians’ work, and such well known songs that if anything he is paying them tribute and advertising for them. As long as the sampled work promises advertisement or further income issues of copyright seem to be ignored.

The comparison between artistic collage and plagiarism is a perfect one. “readymades, collage, found art or found text, intertexts, combines, detrounment, and appropriation—all these terms represent explorations in plagiarism.” (page 3). This is all Girltalk is doing- collaging other artists music. “Plagiarism often carries a weight of negative connotations,” (page 3) however these are within very strict definitions of the word and the culture that surrounds it. When most people think of plagiarism it is in the academic context. The student has a research paper and rather than prove a hypothesis on their own they choose to steal the words and ideas of another and pass them off as their own. The issue at hand here is ego and lie. This student expects a good grade and praise for their lies told.

It is a very delicate line between what this student does and say the cut up method of William Burroughs. I believe a defining distinction is the praise. Burroughs cut up method is not egotistical- it is for everyone and merely a reorganization of another mans words. The Utopian Plagiarism draws another perfect comparison with Marcel Duchamp saying that he “took objects to which he was ‘visually indifferent,’ and recontextualized them in a manner that shifted their meaning.” (page 4). His effort was not to take credit for the advent of the urinal nor to be praised for it. He wanted to challenge his audience to think about the object in a new light. It was not an effort demanding praise of his brilliance, in fact, it upset most if its viewers.

The copyright community is rooted in praise. It is a system for the rich to protect what made them rich and to keep them rich. I think there is a time and place where the ideals behind copyright are legitimate, it is important to recognize an artists work. However, the example given in class of Nina Paley having to pay $50,000 to include the Annette Hanshaw song in her work proves that copyright is more about protecting corporations than art or the individuals that create it. A situation where Annette Hanshaw was being paid for the use of her music is one I can respect. This was not the case.

Those blind supporters of copyright strike me much as the power elite pacifying the masses that Adorno and Horkheimer discussed in the Culture Industry. Their goal was to profit on the exploitation of the minds of the masses. It was a goal strictly founded in financial success with little to no importance placed on the artistic value of the programming. What is the point in holding on to these old prototypes when there aren’t anymore to be made? All the artistic community can do at this point is recapitulate the ideas of their ancestors. “What is the point of saving language when there is no longer anything to say? “ (page 19).

The Critical Art Ensemble said it elegantly, “information is most useful when it interacts with other information, rather than when it is defied and presented in a vacuum.” (page 9). No piece of art is created in total isolation of the artistic community. All art has its roots in its predecessors regardless of how innovative it may be. If the artistic community really wants to make new strides they will have to leave their ego behind and collaborate.

blog #2

Once upon a time we believed that our eyes and brains processed moving images the same way they are shown to us by a camera. This was proven false, just as the argument that the algorithms new digital technology and databases utilize reflect our brain functions. The question this debate raised for me was which is more sophisticated, my brain or the digital machine?
Naturally these algorithms are far more efficient and can process/access more information at a given time than I can. However, if my brain has the capacity to internalize the differing structures in my vicinity and it was the human brain that created these systems, I would argue that it is the human brain, and not the digital database that is more sophisticated.
Humans make decisions in a much more complex way incorporating emotions and third dimensions that the discrete on-off switches of binary code cannot begin to process. While the end result may be the same, there is no direct path obviously discernable by my consciousness when I make a given decision, as there would be in an algorithmic equation. Real thought can be analyzed and confined into an algorithmic summary however real thought is a much more layered and complex process influenced by new data and variables outside of the realm of the discrete.
We have learned to understand these computerized algorithms because they are logical and we can utilize them efficiently however that is not the way we perceive the universe. No we cannot distinguish between the given pixels in a digital picture like a computer can. However, my mother, a 63-year-old woman who witnessed the birth of the digital age, is able to manipulate the tools around her to multi-task, doing multiple searches, playing many games and emailing simultaneously. As this system developed around her, her brain adapted to it and learned to manipulate it making her the more sophisticated creature.
Our brains are malleable and learn new ways to process information based on the systems that surround us. Because of the nature of the internet I believe that we have learned to focus on more things at a time. Yes my mother is an impressive specimen when plugged into the developing digital culture, however, when compared to myself, a 22-year-old who has always known the presence of this digital dialogue, she is still far behind. While we may not be wholly entrenched in any given task, we are able watch TV while having four browser tabs open ranging from facebook to email to a google search to gmail chat. Because this is the digital layered system we use every day, I absolutely agree that we create a non-linear narrative out of the media surrounding us.
The perfect example of this is the way in which the student of the digital age writes their research paper. As they gather their information they carefully construct paragraphs, even whole sections of their work based on the information they are accessing. After reading many articles and writing many sections we cut, paste and rearrange these tidbits into a linear narrative when the process increating them was anything but linear.